Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
> "Eldar Insafutdinov" <e.insafutdinov@gmail.com> wrote in message news:hj2njd$o1g$1@digitalmars.com...> >> > Having a solid GDC implementation you can be sure that it will be included in distributions (Debian had GDC for quite a long time).
> > "had"? Is that a typo or did they drop it?
> > I just apt-get install gdc on Ubuntu and got 4.2.4

Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
> "Eldar Insafutdinov" <e.insafutdinov@gmail.com> wrote in message news:hj2njd$o1g$1@digitalmars.com...> >> > Having a solid GDC implementation you can be sure that it will be included in distributions (Debian had GDC for quite a long time).
> > "had"? Is that a typo or did they drop it?
> >
Sorry for confusion, I meant it had when I checked it last time. I never used GDC and I believe not many people do, as D2 went to far away since the last front-end update, and for D1 a lot of people prefer LDC.

Eldar Insafutdinov, el 18 de enero a las 17:33 me escribiste:
> bearophile Wrote:
> > > Jerry Quinn:
> > > I'm interested in creating a D front end for GCC that would be part of the GCC codebase.
> > > > What about helping LDC devs create a good D2 implementation instead? It's probably 1/5 or 1/10 of the work you think about, because lot of work is already done, and surely some people will help you (me too).
> > > > There's Dil, DMD, GDC, LDC, D#, etc, but one good, debugged and well optimizing fully open source D2 compiler is much better than ten broken and/or badly optimizing D compilers.
> > > > Bye,
> > bearophile
> > I agree that having such a good intent the author of the post should better concentrate his effort on helping GDC/LDC. LDC took couple of years to become usable, and you have to consider that they took an existing front-end.
> > Also what I think even when you complete this project, it is not only the licensing issues that are preventing GDC from being included into GCC. They will do that only if they are interested in this project, as it requires maintenance. They will not update GCC-D frontend with every release of GCC just because it is a part of it.
I agree that embarking a new front-end will be a huge effort that probably will end up abandoned before it's completed, unless there is some economic sponsorship or something, but having a front-end which copyright can be given to the FSF is a necessary condition to merge GDC (or whatever it's named) to GCC. Hitting GCC means automatic exposure to millions of people, if more people use it, more people will be interested in maintain it, etc. The maintain Nance cost will decrease too, as I think this works like in the Linux kernel, where if some "back-end" changes are done, the person who make them is responsible to update all the code relying on it. Of course those people will not fix the front-end, but at least you don't have to care anymore in updating the back-end glue.
I think one of the bigger problems with GDC right now is to update it to the latest GCC version, not merging the latest DMD front-end.
Being official part of GCC is nothing but a huge win. Of course GCC guy won't accept crap or things that won't get maintained, so it's a necessary condition but not sufficient to have a new front-end.
--
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Desde chiquito quería ser doctor
Pero después me enfermé y me hice músico

Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> I agree that embarking a new front-end will be a huge effort that probably
> will end up abandoned before it's completed, unless there is some economic
> sponsorship or something, but having a front-end which copyright can be
> given to the FSF is a necessary condition to merge GDC (or whatever it's
> named) to GCC.
Will they take a fork of the dmd source, such that they own the copyright to the fork and Digital Mars still has copyright to the original?

Walter Bright Wrote:
> Will they take a fork of the dmd source, such that they own the copyright to the fork and Digital Mars still has copyright to the original?
I'll ask, but if a snapshot is contributed to them such that it can be licensed under GPLv3 and copyright on that snapshot is assigned to FSF, then I think there would be no issues.
Jerry

Walter Bright Wrote:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > I agree that embarking a new front-end will be a huge effort that probably will end up abandoned before it's completed, unless there is some economic sponsorship or something, but having a front-end which copyright can be given to the FSF is a necessary condition to merge GDC (or whatever it's named) to GCC.
> > Will they take a fork of the dmd source, such that they own the copyright to the fork and Digital Mars still has copyright to the original?
Go for it Walter - the paths to fame are incomprehensible. Also, you'll still be faster than they are!

Jerry Quinn, el 19 de enero a las 13:57 me escribiste:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
> > > Will they take a fork of the dmd source, such that they own the copyright to the fork and Digital Mars still has copyright to the original?
> > I'll ask, but if a snapshot is contributed to them such that it can be licensed under GPLv3 and copyright on that snapshot is assigned to FSF, then I think there would be no issues.
Please let us know what the answer is!
--
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONDUCTOR COREANO AGREDE A CRONICA TV
-- Crónica TV

Walter Bright Wrote:
> Will they take a fork of the dmd source, such that they own the copyright to the fork and Digital Mars still has copyright to the original?
Hi, Walter,
The answer appears to be yes:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00430.html
Jerry

Jerry Quinn wrote:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
>> Will they take a fork of the dmd source, such that they own the copyright to the fork and Digital Mars still has copyright to the original?
> > Hi, Walter,
> > The answer appears to be yes:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00430.html> > Jerry
>
That's great news. I suppose I should look over the forms they talk about!

Walter Bright, el 23 de enero a las 12:54 me escribiste:
> Jerry Quinn wrote:
> >Walter Bright Wrote:
> >>Will they take a fork of the dmd source, such that they own the copyright to the fork and Digital Mars still has copyright to the original?
> >> >Hi, Walter,
> >> >The answer appears to be yes:
> >> >http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00430.html> >> >Jerry
> >> > That's great news. I suppose I should look over the forms they talk about!
Great news indeed! Since DMD FE is GPL I think it won't be any trouble to fold in the new changes back to GDC as they did (and LDC too), so it won't be really a *fork*, right?
Walter, please, please, please let us know how this progresses. Thanks!
--
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------